THE HOTTEST LOBBYIST IN TOWN

Michele Jacklin Michele Jacklin is The Courant's political columnist. Her column appears every Wednesday and Sunday. To leave her a comment, please callTHE HARTFORD COURANT

Every time Jay Malcynsky's name appears in print in this newspaper and others, it means one thing: more cash in the till for the politically wired lobbyist and his high-wattage firm, Gaffney, Bennett&Associates.;

The more attention the news media pay to Malcynsky, the most plugged-in lobbyist at the Capitol, the more that clients seek him out and the higher his earnings soar.

It doesn't matter that the publicity may be unfavorable. It only matters that Malcynsky's name is paired with the words "influential" and "powerful" and that his friendship with Gov. John G. Rowland is prominently mentioned.

A onetime political ally of Lowell P. Weicker Jr., Malcynsky easily and gracefully transferred his allegiance to Rowland shortly after the 1994 election. Since then, Gaffney, Bennett has emerged from the shark pool to become the dominant and most predatory lobbying outfit at the Statehouse.

In 2000, Gaffney, Bennett reported $3.89 million in billings, according to the State Ethics Commission, eclipsing its nearest rival by $2 million. The firm's blue-chip roster exceeds 70 clients and includes some of Connecticut's most prestigious companies.

In short, Malcynsky and his Gaffney, Bennett cohorts rake in the dough because they deliver.

On Dec. 21, they delivered big-time for Boys Village of Milford. Without fanfare, in keeping with Malcynsky's below-the-radar modus operandi, the State Bond Commission voted to authorize $2 million for Boys Village to help build two new shelters with 32 beds for children with psychiatric problems. An existing 25-bed building also will be renovated.

There's no disputing the worthiness of this project. The demand is greater than ever for treatment facilities that deal with kids with mental illness, behavioral problems and addiction disorders.

The need notwithstanding, the back-door approval process, the timing of the vote and the subsequent obfuscation by state officials are troubling.

As negotiated earlier this year by budget-makers and the cash-strapped folks who run group homes, battered women's shelters and the like, about $17 million was to have been divvied up among the several hundred providers that do business with the state. The grants, though not large, were to be disbursed under a formula based on the facilities' yearly allocation. Perhaps $20,000 or $30,000 for a paint job, new computer system or other cosmetic and structural improvements.

With a budget deficit looming, Rowland and the legislature in November decreased the pot of money to $7 million, of which $2.5 million was to be financed through bonding. Six days after Boys Village scarfed up the lion's share of the bond money, the governor and budget chief Marc Ryan proposed eliminating nearly all of the remaining money as part of the administration's deficit-reduction plan.

In the wake of the Bond Commission vote, Ryan acknowledged the existence of the formula but said the rules changed after the November cuts. He said he advised legislative leaders that the $2.5 million would be available for "a limited number of projects." Very limited, as it turns out.

Ryan characterized the ensuing discord as a misunderstanding. But legislative leaders, a key Finance Committee member, legislative budget analysts and the leaders of the nonprofit provider organizations say they had a clear understanding of the ground rules -- and they were not as Ryan suggests.

"I was extremely surprised to see a request for such a large allocation for one entity, knowing that there are other needs out there," said Rep. Andrea Stillman of Waterford, co-chairwoman of the legislature's bonding subcommittee. Stillman questioned the Boys Village item at the Bond Commission meeting.

Typically, Stillman is made aware of which projects are to be funded. But, she said, neither Malcynsky, whose firm is paid $20,000 a year by Boys Village, nor anyone else discussed the expansion and renovation project with her during the legislative session or since. "Very few people seemed to know about the project," she said. "It was like, 'Whoa, what is this?"'

We know now what it is. Forget about the agreement with hundreds of nonprofit providers. Forget about the legislature's long-established process for approving bond projects. Forget about fairness.